Energy facts from oil to electricity

Green Irrationality

The so-called Green movement has captured people’s attention, yet the movement hasn’t received much objective reporting by the media.

It seems as though if it’s green, it’s good.

But is green always good?

When you look objectively at the Green movement, one is struck by the irrationality of the movement.

For example, two of the major objectives of the Greens are to:

Cut CO2 emissions to stop climate change, i.e., global warming

Become energy independent.

However their actions contradict those objectives.

Nuclear energy is the only method available for providing needed electricity without CO2 emissions, yet the Greens are trying to stop the use of nuclear energy.

The Greens are promoting electric vehicles to stop the importation of oil from foreign countries, yet they obstruct the development of oil resources in the United States.

There are other specific secondary objectives where their actions are also irrational, such as shutting down coal-fired power plants that emit mercury, while promoting compact fluorescent lamps that contain mercury.

Shutting down coal-fired power plants while also shutting down nuclear power plants can also be viewed as irrational.

In the past, rational behavior resulted in developing and using products that were cost efficient. The basis for this form of rationality was the use of return on Investment (ROI).

Until now, it has been common practice to require an ROI of two years for major investments, or perhaps five years if there were other benefits.

Rationality is being discarded by the Greens to promote specific Green objectives. For example, the PHEV and BEV are products that may never achieve any acceptable return on investment, but proponents use government, tax-payer money to promote the product because rational customers won’t pay the premium price. (See articleThe 20% Rule.)

Another example is promoting CFLs and light emitting diodes (LEDs) to replace the incandescent bulb. While a 100-watt incandescent bulb may cost $0.60, the CFL costs $2.00 and the 100 watt LED is expected to cost $30 or more. In most situations, CFLs and LEDs do not achieve an acceptable ROI, and may not achieve good lighting. (See article Lighting Ain’t Simple.)

Greens make the claim that saving electricity by using CFLs will cut the use of foreign oil and help achieve energy independence, yet oil generates an extremely small amount of our electricity, i.e., 1%.

Green groups promote wind energy and solar energy for the same reasons, even though wind and solar are unquestionably some of the most expensive methods for generating electricity.

Who are the organizations that seem to be acting irrationally?

A few include:

Sierra Club

Greenpeace

The Union of Concerned Scientists

The Natural Resources Defense Council

Friends of the Earth

If they are acting irrationally in the eyes of the average person, they could be acting rationally for their purposes.

If they are acting rationally and being consistent with respect to their organization’s objectives, what are their true objectives?

I can’t answer that question, but I do wonder why they are attacking the development of oil in the United States, and why they are opposing fracking that will result in the United States having enough low-cost natural gas to supply its needs for over 100 years. Why do they oppose ultra-supercritical coal-fired power plants when these very efficient units can be equipped to meet all Nox, SOx, particulate and mercury emission requirements, and why are they promoting renewable portfolio standards (RPS) that will burden Americans with very expensive electricity?

Green shouldn’t be the magic word that exempts organizations from objective scrutiny.

Green groups should be analyzed and reported on by the media, just as the media scrutinizes people who question the objectives of these groups.

Objective reporting of green groups is long overdue. It’s also important because the Greens are encouraging policies that impose high energy costs, and possible energy shortages on the United States.

I know of no one who opposes rational, beneficial environmental regulations. I know of no one who would skewer the planet.

Of course, the Greens will respond by saying that anyone who opposes their views about the planet are monsters, of one type or another.

* * * * * *

If you find these articles on energy issues interesting and informative, you can have them delivered directly to your mailbox by going to the Email Subscription heading below the photo.

Please forward this message to those who might be interested in these articles on energy issues.

* * * * * *

[To find earlier articles, click on the name of the preceding month below the calendar to display a list of articles published in that month. Continue clicking on the name of the preceding month to display articles published in prior months.]

Related

Last month solar companies Spectra Watt in New York, Evergreen Solar in
Massachusetts, and Solyndra Solar in California went bankrupt. All companies
had extensive subsidies from state and federal governments. Taxpayer losses
most likely exceeded $1 billion. All three states have high electricity costs
due to banning coal use and mandating renewable energy sources for electricity
production.

Renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, and ethanol from corn require
substantial subsidies from state and federal governments in order to stimulate
product use. An example of solar subsidies are 35 percent of system cost up to
$500,000 by the state of Georgia and 30 percent federal.

Subsidies for ethanol from corn are confusing to decipher; but one is payment of
45 cents for every gallon of ethanol mixed with gasoline and another is federal
mandates for ethanol use of 15 billion gallons by 2015 and 35 billion gallons by
2022. Gasoline stations are paid to sell E-85(mixture of 85 percent
ethanol and 15 percent gasoline) for which Georgia has paid $10,000 per pump
for three years use and similar subsidies from the U. S. Department of
Agriculture.

E-85 sells for twenty cents per gallon less than gasoline and vehicles get 30
percent lower mileage. Only a person deficient in mathematics would use E-85.

Plug-in electric cars, such as the Nissan Leaf and Chevrolet Volt, have
purchaser’s subsidies of $5000 from Georgia and $7000 federal. These cars are
reported to travel 65 miles on a 30 kilowatt-hour charge for the Leaf and 35
miles for a 20 kilowatt-hour charge for the Volt. In evaluating electric cars
you should go to the power plant source of electricity for its energy
requirements. Thus a power plant charging these cars would have energy
requirements of 90 kilowatt-hours for the Leaf and 60 kilowatt-hours for the
Volt. These energy requirements are equivalent to 2.4 gallons of gasoline for
the Leaf and 1.6 gallons for the Volt. The equivalent miles per gallon of 27 for
the Leaf and 22 for the Volt are poor compared to 40 achieved by conventional
small cars that cost half or less of these cars.

No mention is made of possible increased insurance charges or environmental
effects involving collisions or battery disposal of electric cars.

Further transportation subsidies are payments for proposed charging stations for
battery-powered vehicles and stations carrying compressed natural gas. The
federal DOT gave Oregon $2 million to build 20 electric charging stations in
Northwest Oregon. Very few vehicles of either type are in use.

The owners of Atlanta Station recently announced the availability of three
electric car charging stations that cost $3 per hour. It would cost $9 to
recharge a Volt and $15 to recharge a Leaf that would travel 35 and 65 miles,
respectively.
No gasoline-powered car would cost more to travel these distances.

Promoters of renewable energy sources claim their industry is in its infancy and
subsidies are necessary so they can grow in size to compete with fossil fuels.
In the early twentieth century governments didn’t pay people to buy cars or
subsidize gasoline purchases.

These industries have been around for close to 40 years or more. With present
technology, they can’t compete with our very abundant fossil fuels. Thus there
is no end in sight to subsidies unless fossil fuel use is eliminated by
legislation or their costs increased by draconian environmental regulations.
EPA is working on the latter alternative with help from organizations, like the
American Lung Association, paid to do its bidding.

Subsidies are paid by taxpayers and they can be considered investments that
succeed only if all other energy prices skyrocket. Renewable energy subsidies
are likened to playing lotteries in which winners pay a 300 percent tax on
winnings. Taxpayers lose in all cases.

Use this argument against providing renewable energy subsidies. Annual
subsidies must exceed $40 billion and waste taxpayer’s money in times both state
and federal governments are in deep economic distress. An additional important
factor is subsidies direct resources away from economic and practical solutions
to our energy problems. Find examples of governments picking economic winners.
————————————————————————————————

James H. Rust is a retired nuclear engineering professor with over fifty year
experience in areas related to energy policy.